Indiana Senate Backs Creationism Bill

Origin of life theories from a wide range of religions may be taught alongside evolution in the state.

By Cristina Luiggi | February 2, 2012

Dreamstime, Joyce Michaud

DREAMSTIME, JOYCE MICHAUD

After deliberating for less than 20 minutes on Tuesday (January 31), the Indiana State Senate approved a bill allowing schools to teach “various theories concerning the origin of life,” including those of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Scientology. The day before, the bill had been modified from its original form to include the teaching of other religious views in addition to creationism.

The bill still needs the approval of the state’s House of Representatives and governor Mitch Daniels before it’s passed into law. And even if the bill is passed into law, schools will not be required to teach the new material, the Indystar reported, but merely allowed to if they so choose. According to a spokeswoman for the Indiana Department of Education, the state will not develop curriculums or guidelines for teaching creationism, but will leave that up to the individual schools.

Indiana again shows why America is loosing in the race to graduate thinking young people in the science fields. Think about what would happen to scientific research here if the upcoming November election results in the a republican victory.

If they are teaching the creation stories of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Scientology as mythology, then I have no problem with this. In fact, what better way to help kids see that all religious myths are equally absurd if taken as history, and equally meaningful if taken as allegory.

It seems that the mythologies are to be permitted in the science curriculum. You are correct to say that, like ancient Greek mythology or traditional beliefs of aboriginal peoples, they are properly the stuff of literature or anthropology; however, this seems not to be the case.

This is all about using Indiana tax payer money to take the issue to the Supreme Court where there's a good chance that the ideologically weighted court will make a new precedent for their far right constituents.Â Assuming it passes, someone will have to take them to court.Â That's not a sure thing.Â Since the conservative religious fundamentalists keep being told (incorrectly) that science is antithetical to their beliefs for them its a win/win.

There are some popular conceptions about religious beliefs that are dead wrong.Â Here are a few of them:

That no one can be a scientist and also have religious faith.Â Wrong.Â At least one poll has shown that many scientists do, indeed, have religious faith;

That no one can be effective in research and have religious faith.Â Wrong.Â While it is necessary that a researcher treat results of empirical experiment as real, and not deny them, interpretation is not to be confused with certitude.Â If it were certitude, there would be no need of interpretation.Â That the existence of God has been disproved by science.Â Wrong.Â It has not.Â Neither has the existence of God been proved by science.Â At least not yet.Â It has neither been ruled in nor ruled out by empirical means.Â Some atheists go on the presumption that God does not exist until proven to exist.Â Those who argue this often cite the "Occam's razor," reasoning.Â Go back to ANY highly-developed phenomenon in science -- take concepts of what heat is, for example -- and apply Occam's Razor (which demands that the simplest notion of what experimentation ultimately will reveal about it, and that is not the way new knowledge turned out to be).Â The more we humans learn about a phenomenon the MORE complex it turns out to be -- not the simpler.

That there is a comparable percentage of atheists in every field of scientific research.Â Wrong.Â A far smaller percentage of atheists are to be found among physicitsts, say, than biologists.Â The deeper one delves into physics, the less certainty and the less consistency is discovered.Â Nowadays the notion of parallel universes (other worlds with other "laws," is fairly well accepted. Different laws apply at different scales of reference (quantum scale "reality" is quite different from the scale most accessible to the human sensory experience.

That certain popular atheists in the sciences have reasoned away the existence of God for any but the most naive of thinkers.Â Wrong.Â Empirically God cannot be ruled in nor ruled out.Â There always have been things scientists have not yet ruled in nor ruled out.Â That does not make assumptions about those things one way or the other way more reasonable.Â If one starts with the presumption God is not, then everything confirms it.Â If one begins with the presumption God is, then from there everything confirms it.Â Why?Â Because BY DEFINITION logic leads inevitably back to the postulates with which it begins.Â Pure objectivity is letting things not yet proved nor disproved remain open.Â This does not rule out faith.Â Faith is what we choose to believe until and unless it becomes settled:Â ruled in or out, one way or the other.

To close one's mind to one possibility is not scientific.Â To rely upon what one canestablish as a certainty in science, however, would result in tossing out all textbooks.Â This is because the vast bulk of all we humans perceive ourselves to know for a certainty is based on circumstantial evidence,subjective interpretation of that circumstantial evidence, statistical probabilities, assumptions about things not yet discovered (vis a vis dark matter, what gravity is, what heat is, what light is).

Each of us, in every day of our lives, must act upon unfalsified assumptions.Â We take our best guesses and act upon them, because if we did not we would never have enough "information certain" to function.

Some of the best argumentations one can use to support the validity and practicality of having a faith stance the God exists can be found among the very same thinkers who have chosen the stance (between two unknowns) that God does not exist.

Many philosophers have taken the one of the open stances, and many, the other.

That is any person's choice.Â For those who have chosen one stance to belittle those who have taken the other, is not scientifically objective, is not the most intelligent choice, is not the most rational choice.Â Why should there be a heated discussion over who is right and who is wrong in which choice he has chosen.

I have an atheist friend who said to me, years ago, "I'll start believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He exists."

I responded that I will stop believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He does not exist."Â He and I agreed that day, years ago, to accept each the other's right to choose what we will assume.Â And the day the question is settled, we shall both be on the same page.

The existence of God and other issues relevant to religion are not scientific questions. They cannot be offered in the form of hypotheses that are falsifiable. They are, from a scientific perspective, "meaningless."

So, it is possible for scientists to be religious in their non-professional lives, just as it is possible for them to be athletes or poets. These domains need not trench on each other's turf. Although I suspect that he concedes too much to the religious dimension, you might put your worries to rest by reading Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages," which allocated empiricial knowledge to science and normative knowledge to ethics and religion.

It's not the final answer (which is aÂ doubtful possibility anyway), but itÂ may beÂ a satisfactory compromise especially in the United States, where religion plays such a dominant role in public discourse.

Indiana again shows why America is loosing in the race to graduate thinking young people in the science fields. Think about what would happen to scientific research here if the upcoming November election results in the a republican victory.

If they are teaching the creation stories of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Scientology as mythology, then I have no problem with this. In fact, what better way to help kids see that all religious myths are equally absurd if taken as history, and equally meaningful if taken as allegory.

It seems that the mythologies are to be permitted in the science curriculum. You are correct to say that, like ancient Greek mythology or traditional beliefs of aboriginal peoples, they are properly the stuff of literature or anthropology; however, this seems not to be the case.

This is all about using Indiana tax payer money to take the issue to the Supreme Court where there's a good chance that the ideologically weighted court will make a new precedent for their far right constituents.Â Assuming it passes, someone will have to take them to court.Â That's not a sure thing.Â Since the conservative religious fundamentalists keep being told (incorrectly) that science is antithetical to their beliefs for them its a win/win.

There are some popular conceptions about religious beliefs that are dead wrong.Â Here are a few of them:

That no one can be a scientist and also have religious faith.Â Wrong.Â At least one poll has shown that many scientists do, indeed, have religious faith;

That no one can be effective in research and have religious faith.Â Wrong.Â While it is necessary that a researcher treat results of empirical experiment as real, and not deny them, interpretation is not to be confused with certitude.Â If it were certitude, there would be no need of interpretation.Â That the existence of God has been disproved by science.Â Wrong.Â It has not.Â Neither has the existence of God been proved by science.Â At least not yet.Â It has neither been ruled in nor ruled out by empirical means.Â Some atheists go on the presumption that God does not exist until proven to exist.Â Those who argue this often cite the "Occam's razor," reasoning.Â Go back to ANY highly-developed phenomenon in science -- take concepts of what heat is, for example -- and apply Occam's Razor (which demands that the simplest notion of what experimentation ultimately will reveal about it, and that is not the way new knowledge turned out to be).Â The more we humans learn about a phenomenon the MORE complex it turns out to be -- not the simpler.

That there is a comparable percentage of atheists in every field of scientific research.Â Wrong.Â A far smaller percentage of atheists are to be found among physicitsts, say, than biologists.Â The deeper one delves into physics, the less certainty and the less consistency is discovered.Â Nowadays the notion of parallel universes (other worlds with other "laws," is fairly well accepted. Different laws apply at different scales of reference (quantum scale "reality" is quite different from the scale most accessible to the human sensory experience.

That certain popular atheists in the sciences have reasoned away the existence of God for any but the most naive of thinkers.Â Wrong.Â Empirically God cannot be ruled in nor ruled out.Â There always have been things scientists have not yet ruled in nor ruled out.Â That does not make assumptions about those things one way or the other way more reasonable.Â If one starts with the presumption God is not, then everything confirms it.Â If one begins with the presumption God is, then from there everything confirms it.Â Why?Â Because BY DEFINITION logic leads inevitably back to the postulates with which it begins.Â Pure objectivity is letting things not yet proved nor disproved remain open.Â This does not rule out faith.Â Faith is what we choose to believe until and unless it becomes settled:Â ruled in or out, one way or the other.

To close one's mind to one possibility is not scientific.Â To rely upon what one canestablish as a certainty in science, however, would result in tossing out all textbooks.Â This is because the vast bulk of all we humans perceive ourselves to know for a certainty is based on circumstantial evidence,subjective interpretation of that circumstantial evidence, statistical probabilities, assumptions about things not yet discovered (vis a vis dark matter, what gravity is, what heat is, what light is).

Each of us, in every day of our lives, must act upon unfalsified assumptions.Â We take our best guesses and act upon them, because if we did not we would never have enough "information certain" to function.

Some of the best argumentations one can use to support the validity and practicality of having a faith stance the God exists can be found among the very same thinkers who have chosen the stance (between two unknowns) that God does not exist.

Many philosophers have taken the one of the open stances, and many, the other.

That is any person's choice.Â For those who have chosen one stance to belittle those who have taken the other, is not scientifically objective, is not the most intelligent choice, is not the most rational choice.Â Why should there be a heated discussion over who is right and who is wrong in which choice he has chosen.

I have an atheist friend who said to me, years ago, "I'll start believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He exists."

I responded that I will stop believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He does not exist."Â He and I agreed that day, years ago, to accept each the other's right to choose what we will assume.Â And the day the question is settled, we shall both be on the same page.

The existence of God and other issues relevant to religion are not scientific questions. They cannot be offered in the form of hypotheses that are falsifiable. They are, from a scientific perspective, "meaningless."

So, it is possible for scientists to be religious in their non-professional lives, just as it is possible for them to be athletes or poets. These domains need not trench on each other's turf. Although I suspect that he concedes too much to the religious dimension, you might put your worries to rest by reading Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages," which allocated empiricial knowledge to science and normative knowledge to ethics and religion.

It's not the final answer (which is aÂ doubtful possibility anyway), but itÂ may beÂ a satisfactory compromise especially in the United States, where religion plays such a dominant role in public discourse.

Indiana again shows why America is loosing in the race to graduate thinking young people in the science fields. Think about what would happen to scientific research here if the upcoming November election results in the a republican victory.

If they are teaching the creation stories of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Scientology as mythology, then I have no problem with this. In fact, what better way to help kids see that all religious myths are equally absurd if taken as history, and equally meaningful if taken as allegory.

It seems that the mythologies are to be permitted in the science curriculum. You are correct to say that, like ancient Greek mythology or traditional beliefs of aboriginal peoples, they are properly the stuff of literature or anthropology; however, this seems not to be the case.

This is all about using Indiana tax payer money to take the issue to the Supreme Court where there's a good chance that the ideologically weighted court will make a new precedent for their far right constituents.Â Assuming it passes, someone will have to take them to court.Â That's not a sure thing.Â Since the conservative religious fundamentalists keep being told (incorrectly) that science is antithetical to their beliefs for them its a win/win.

There are some popular conceptions about religious beliefs that are dead wrong.Â Here are a few of them:

That no one can be a scientist and also have religious faith.Â Wrong.Â At least one poll has shown that many scientists do, indeed, have religious faith;

That no one can be effective in research and have religious faith.Â Wrong.Â While it is necessary that a researcher treat results of empirical experiment as real, and not deny them, interpretation is not to be confused with certitude.Â If it were certitude, there would be no need of interpretation.Â That the existence of God has been disproved by science.Â Wrong.Â It has not.Â Neither has the existence of God been proved by science.Â At least not yet.Â It has neither been ruled in nor ruled out by empirical means.Â Some atheists go on the presumption that God does not exist until proven to exist.Â Those who argue this often cite the "Occam's razor," reasoning.Â Go back to ANY highly-developed phenomenon in science -- take concepts of what heat is, for example -- and apply Occam's Razor (which demands that the simplest notion of what experimentation ultimately will reveal about it, and that is not the way new knowledge turned out to be).Â The more we humans learn about a phenomenon the MORE complex it turns out to be -- not the simpler.

That there is a comparable percentage of atheists in every field of scientific research.Â Wrong.Â A far smaller percentage of atheists are to be found among physicitsts, say, than biologists.Â The deeper one delves into physics, the less certainty and the less consistency is discovered.Â Nowadays the notion of parallel universes (other worlds with other "laws," is fairly well accepted. Different laws apply at different scales of reference (quantum scale "reality" is quite different from the scale most accessible to the human sensory experience.

That certain popular atheists in the sciences have reasoned away the existence of God for any but the most naive of thinkers.Â Wrong.Â Empirically God cannot be ruled in nor ruled out.Â There always have been things scientists have not yet ruled in nor ruled out.Â That does not make assumptions about those things one way or the other way more reasonable.Â If one starts with the presumption God is not, then everything confirms it.Â If one begins with the presumption God is, then from there everything confirms it.Â Why?Â Because BY DEFINITION logic leads inevitably back to the postulates with which it begins.Â Pure objectivity is letting things not yet proved nor disproved remain open.Â This does not rule out faith.Â Faith is what we choose to believe until and unless it becomes settled:Â ruled in or out, one way or the other.

To close one's mind to one possibility is not scientific.Â To rely upon what one canestablish as a certainty in science, however, would result in tossing out all textbooks.Â This is because the vast bulk of all we humans perceive ourselves to know for a certainty is based on circumstantial evidence,subjective interpretation of that circumstantial evidence, statistical probabilities, assumptions about things not yet discovered (vis a vis dark matter, what gravity is, what heat is, what light is).

Each of us, in every day of our lives, must act upon unfalsified assumptions.Â We take our best guesses and act upon them, because if we did not we would never have enough "information certain" to function.

Some of the best argumentations one can use to support the validity and practicality of having a faith stance the God exists can be found among the very same thinkers who have chosen the stance (between two unknowns) that God does not exist.

Many philosophers have taken the one of the open stances, and many, the other.

That is any person's choice.Â For those who have chosen one stance to belittle those who have taken the other, is not scientifically objective, is not the most intelligent choice, is not the most rational choice.Â Why should there be a heated discussion over who is right and who is wrong in which choice he has chosen.

I have an atheist friend who said to me, years ago, "I'll start believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He exists."

I responded that I will stop believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He does not exist."Â He and I agreed that day, years ago, to accept each the other's right to choose what we will assume.Â And the day the question is settled, we shall both be on the same page.

The existence of God and other issues relevant to religion are not scientific questions. They cannot be offered in the form of hypotheses that are falsifiable. They are, from a scientific perspective, "meaningless."

So, it is possible for scientists to be religious in their non-professional lives, just as it is possible for them to be athletes or poets. These domains need not trench on each other's turf. Although I suspect that he concedes too much to the religious dimension, you might put your worries to rest by reading Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages," which allocated empiricial knowledge to science and normative knowledge to ethics and religion.

It's not the final answer (which is aÂ doubtful possibility anyway), but itÂ may beÂ a satisfactory compromise especially in the United States, where religion plays such a dominant role in public discourse.

My name is Herman Cummings.Â Iâ€™m the leading expert on the book of Genesis.Â Â I had written State Senator Dennis Kruse, about dropping the foolishness of Creation science, and teaching the truth of Genesis.Â But he is in a delusion, and thinks that â€œyoung Earthâ€쳌 creation is what the Bible teaches.Â He is wrong.Â In fact, all current creationism doctrines are in error, and misrepresent the Genesis text.Â So now, instead of just the truth of Genesis being given, the schools may now be mired down with the myths from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.Â Genesis does not have any â€œcreation storiesâ€쳌 or myths.Â Genesis chapter one is about the 4.6 billion year history of life on Earth, and not about Creation Week.Â Both the worlds of Creationism and Theology do not understand the Genesis text, and teach false doctrines that Genesis does not support.Â I have a 62 minute PowerPoint presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis, which yourboard members should all see.Â It explains Genesis chapter one, and compares it with both the geologic and fossil records of Earth.Â None of those (other) â€œorigin mythsâ€쳌 address the prehistoric history of Earth.Â Â It is the correct opposing view to evolution.Â I also teach a 6-hr class for science teachers, which I call a â€œGenesis appreciationâ€쳌 course.Â It goes into more depth concerning the geologic and fossil records of our ancient past, andÂ trains the teachers on how to teach the students about Genesis, and to answer the questionsÂ the students would ask.Â Also, I give protection against the lawsuits that may be filed by the ACLU.Â I can defeat them in a court of law, in such a way that they would never oppose anything that is not â€œevolutionâ€쳌 again.Â Look me up on the internet.

My name is Herman Cummings.Â Iâ€™m the leading expert on the book of Genesis.Â Â I had written State Senator Dennis Kruse, about dropping the foolishness of Creation science, and teaching the truth of Genesis.Â But he is in a delusion, and thinks that â€œyoung Earthâ€쳌 creation is what the Bible teaches.Â He is wrong.Â In fact, all current creationism doctrines are in error, and misrepresent the Genesis text.Â So now, instead of just the truth of Genesis being given, the schools may now be mired down with the myths from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.Â Genesis does not have any â€œcreation storiesâ€쳌 or myths.Â Genesis chapter one is about the 4.6 billion year history of life on Earth, and not about Creation Week.Â Both the worlds of Creationism and Theology do not understand the Genesis text, and teach false doctrines that Genesis does not support.Â I have a 62 minute PowerPoint presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis, which yourboard members should all see.Â It explains Genesis chapter one, and compares it with both the geologic and fossil records of Earth.Â None of those (other) â€œorigin mythsâ€쳌 address the prehistoric history of Earth.Â Â It is the correct opposing view to evolution.Â I also teach a 6-hr class for science teachers, which I call a â€œGenesis appreciationâ€쳌 course.Â It goes into more depth concerning the geologic and fossil records of our ancient past, andÂ trains the teachers on how to teach the students about Genesis, and to answer the questionsÂ the students would ask.Â Also, I give protection against the lawsuits that may be filed by the ACLU.Â I can defeat them in a court of law, in such a way that they would never oppose anything that is not â€œevolutionâ€쳌 again.Â Look me up on the internet.

My name is Herman Cummings.Â Iâ€™m the leading expert on the book of Genesis.Â Â I had written State Senator Dennis Kruse, about dropping the foolishness of Creation science, and teaching the truth of Genesis.Â But he is in a delusion, and thinks that â€œyoung Earthâ€쳌 creation is what the Bible teaches.Â He is wrong.Â In fact, all current creationism doctrines are in error, and misrepresent the Genesis text.Â So now, instead of just the truth of Genesis being given, the schools may now be mired down with the myths from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.Â Genesis does not have any â€œcreation storiesâ€쳌 or myths.Â Genesis chapter one is about the 4.6 billion year history of life on Earth, and not about Creation Week.Â Both the worlds of Creationism and Theology do not understand the Genesis text, and teach false doctrines that Genesis does not support.Â I have a 62 minute PowerPoint presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis, which yourboard members should all see.Â It explains Genesis chapter one, and compares it with both the geologic and fossil records of Earth.Â None of those (other) â€œorigin mythsâ€쳌 address the prehistoric history of Earth.Â Â It is the correct opposing view to evolution.Â I also teach a 6-hr class for science teachers, which I call a â€œGenesis appreciationâ€쳌 course.Â It goes into more depth concerning the geologic and fossil records of our ancient past, andÂ trains the teachers on how to teach the students about Genesis, and to answer the questionsÂ the students would ask.Â Also, I give protection against the lawsuits that may be filed by the ACLU.Â I can defeat them in a court of law, in such a way that they would never oppose anything that is not â€œevolutionâ€쳌 again.Â Look me up on the internet.

At first I thought this might be intended as satire. So, I looked "the leading expert on Genesis" up on the Internet. I am sad to say that he seems to be serious. Although he implies that he is also an expert lawyer capable of defeating them in a court of law, he should beÂ grateful that the ACLU exists; lest anyone try to shut him up, I think he might be in need of its services. Meanwhile, I presume that he and his PowerPoint presentation (no doubt available to all at a price)Â are unconnected to any college or university worthy of the name, for I doubt if tha AAUP would be as indulgent.

The existence of God is the scientific question most relevant to science. It can be offered in the form of a hypothesis and be falsifiable(although that won't happen). We once believed that it was silly to suppose that the earth was not the center of the universe and Bacon believed that astrology was nonsense since we could never get out there. Look where we are today. look at the great length that Thomas Aquinas went in his "SummaÂ theologica" to apply ration and empirical methods to the theory of the existence of God. He was a scientists and we need more like him.

At first I thought this might be intended as satire. So, I looked "the leading expert on Genesis" up on the Internet. I am sad to say that he seems to be serious. Although he implies that he is also an expert lawyer capable of defeating them in a court of law, he should beÂ grateful that the ACLU exists; lest anyone try to shut him up, I think he might be in need of its services. Meanwhile, I presume that he and his PowerPoint presentation (no doubt available to all at a price)Â are unconnected to any college or university worthy of the name, for I doubt if tha AAUP would be as indulgent.

At first I thought this might be intended as satire. So, I looked "the leading expert on Genesis" up on the Internet. I am sad to say that he seems to be serious. Although he implies that he is also an expert lawyer capable of defeating them in a court of law, he should beÂ grateful that the ACLU exists; lest anyone try to shut him up, I think he might be in need of its services. Meanwhile, I presume that he and his PowerPoint presentation (no doubt available to all at a price)Â are unconnected to any college or university worthy of the name, for I doubt if tha AAUP would be as indulgent.

The existence of God is the scientific question most relevant to science. It can be offered in the form of a hypothesis and be falsifiable(although that won't happen). We once believed that it was silly to suppose that the earth was not the center of the universe and Bacon believed that astrology was nonsense since we could never get out there. Look where we are today. look at the great length that Thomas Aquinas went in his "SummaÂ theologica" to apply ration and empirical methods to the theory of the existence of God. He was a scientists and we need more like him.

The existence of God is the scientific question most relevant to science. It can be offered in the form of a hypothesis and be falsifiable(although that won't happen). We once believed that it was silly to suppose that the earth was not the center of the universe and Bacon believed that astrology was nonsense since we could never get out there. Look where we are today. look at the great length that Thomas Aquinas went in his "SummaÂ theologica" to apply ration and empirical methods to the theory of the existence of God. He was a scientists and we need more like him.

Some researchers who have submittedarticles on The Scientist spurred me and I delivered a new definition of lifeand a procedure to create experimental life.

Firstlythank you for your kindness and willingness to enter into dialogue with me, aperson unknown internationally.

Allow me tomake a brief presentation: I am an electronics engineer, specialist in datatransmissions by electromagnetic waves, and manager of Clepsydra.

Since 1990I have addressed issues about the quality of life and I have acquired over timesome knowledge in the field of molecular biology, necessary to understand thephenomenon of life occurrence and life evolution. My son is student inmedicine.

Step1

Based onthe principles of knowledge management, in order to define the full life Iresearched all the information produced by man, of course within the limits ofmy ability and team that I work with, without neglecting it. Comparinginformation from legends and religions, obtained through an unknown technologyof data transmission, against that produced by scientists, gained throughlogical analysis and synthesis of information existing in nature, I deliveredthe Evolutionary Creation Theory, assisted initially by a foreign intelligenceand then by man.

Perhaps the first form of life on the Earthwas sexless mono-cell organisms (see Stanley Miller), then being a worthwhileaddition of an external information to reach RNA and DNA and bi-sexed forms oflife.

The living cell is an open system that obtains dynamic equilibrium statesdue to the radiant and substantial flows from the environment and in theenvironment.

Byretaining information in magnetic field on the media, for the purpose ofsampling theorem and of the principle of the channel, we will be able tounderstand harmonic accumulation dynamic on the live side of the programmesdescribing different possible relationships with the environment, so we canunderstand the formation of living organisms in cascaded coupling throughmagnetic field-substance, and thus comprehending the feedback system (reversereaction positive and / or negative).

Transcriptinformation from magnetic field to substantial support has given rise to thesecond language articulation, which uses words and phrases (programms) producedby the combination of the nitrogenous bases (RNA, DNA), in accordance with thelists of the Fourier spectrum of aminoacids.

FromGenesis 1-12, we can say that the grass and likely all sexless organisms are akind of virus produced by the enviroment (by Earth), in response to informationthat emanates from God through their own magnetic field, before the appearanceof the Sun.

This is likethe information produced by a social system from the word and the action of theManager of that system, so, making a comparison to social systems.

The longevolution of life is very short, but very suggestive, described by Daniel inthe 7.2-4. Other information that describes the emergence of humans, based onevolution, is the one supplied by Paul in 1Chorintiens 15.45-47.

On thebasis of the information transmitted by Proverbs 25.2 Solomon, we can say thatCharles Darwin is one of the Kings of human knowledge.

Thisinformation may be combined with Genesis 6.2 to describe rational interventionof an external intelligence for the purpose of driving evolution in one pre-establisheddirection. This principle of creating opportunities, so that the system will evolvein a predetermined direction, is used nowadays in management.

The actualpresence of paternal mitochondrial DNA in the sperm cells of boys naturallyborn, not in vitro 'born', combined with information from the bible, Paul - Hebrews4.12, Paul - 2 Chorintiens 2.1, and Luke 8.11, genetically certifies Genesisand led me to the development of the theory about the inheritance of paternalmitochondrial DNA (Adam mtDNA theory - - ISBN 978-606-92107-1-0), which completesthe Eve mtDNA theory.

Havingthese elements, we can say that intelligent life is the product of an energyboost, that contains an informational program, which defines the function androle of each specific form of life, integrated in a functional system as awhole and also, we can define viruses as information stored on materialsurroundings by radiations of living organisms, as an environemental feedbackto the behaviour of the organism in the open environment.

Startingfrom the assumption of the Genesis of life by induction of some other form oflife I gave you a plausible definition of life and we can properly convey theefforts of scientists and funds allocated by an appropriate research purposeset by common agreement.

Please takethese descriptions as bio-physical assumptions, until such time when they willbe confirmed or not by biologists in real life.Â

To create a new form of life that does notinteract with the environment, I think you should first set a plan, alsoworking procedure of God:

1 - set up the information program forcarrying out the simplest known form of life, including the membranousprotection and cell multiplication;

2 - create a tyre protection, like amagnetic resonant cavities (Faraday cage); install inside one or more video camerasto record the images;

3 - create one or more transducersbroadband magnetic field (a simple chord or a coil may dither on 30 kHz - 300MHz frequency); these transducers should be some copies of items containing thelife program of the desired form of life, but to be made from inorganicmaterials with the capacity of storage of information;

4 - through a input gate insert the necessarywater and inorganic elements that forms the primary structure of lifeestablished under paragraph 1;

5 - via another input gate insert a veryhigh frequency radiation for sterilization to be sure that there is no life inthe cavity; keep instand by this equipment in order to destroy the shape of life if you will need;

6 - through another input gate insert amagnetic wave in the band 30 kHz - 300 MHz, that was modulated by theinformation programme No 1, like a radio broadcast transmitted words;

7 - cord and / or coil logically shouldswing and perhaps after a period of time should focus the surrounding matter inthe form of the structure set out in paragraph 1;

8-critical point could be obtained bydecreasing the intensity of the external magnetic field and its own resonancein the oscillator, similar to cardiac pulse, i.e. to catch life.

9 - team must be composed of biologists,biochemists, biophysicists and of course a manager.

This means the procedure of God:

- creat rezonant cavity - Genesis 1.6-8;

- creat water and earth as food - Genesis 1.2-10;

- inseminate seeds and words - Genesis 1.11-12

Â

"Tothose who win the victory I will give the right to eat the fruit of the tree oflife that grows in the Garden of God." (Revelation 2.7)

Â

It is possible this plan to succeed or not,but I do not think the deployment costs of are very high and I think that theplan should be tried.

As WinstonChurchill once said about courage, I stood up and expressed my point of viewand now I sit down and listen to the opinions of others involved in thisdialogue.

I hope wecan continue the dialogue on this complex issue of life and its purpose.

Some researchers who have submittedarticles on The Scientist spurred me and I delivered a new definition of lifeand a procedure to create experimental life.

Firstlythank you for your kindness and willingness to enter into dialogue with me, aperson unknown internationally.

Allow me tomake a brief presentation: I am an electronics engineer, specialist in datatransmissions by electromagnetic waves, and manager of Clepsydra.

Since 1990I have addressed issues about the quality of life and I have acquired over timesome knowledge in the field of molecular biology, necessary to understand thephenomenon of life occurrence and life evolution. My son is student inmedicine.

Step1

Based onthe principles of knowledge management, in order to define the full life Iresearched all the information produced by man, of course within the limits ofmy ability and team that I work with, without neglecting it. Comparinginformation from legends and religions, obtained through an unknown technologyof data transmission, against that produced by scientists, gained throughlogical analysis and synthesis of information existing in nature, I deliveredthe Evolutionary Creation Theory, assisted initially by a foreign intelligenceand then by man.

Perhaps the first form of life on the Earthwas sexless mono-cell organisms (see Stanley Miller), then being a worthwhileaddition of an external information to reach RNA and DNA and bi-sexed forms oflife.

The living cell is an open system that obtains dynamic equilibrium statesdue to the radiant and substantial flows from the environment and in theenvironment.

Byretaining information in magnetic field on the media, for the purpose ofsampling theorem and of the principle of the channel, we will be able tounderstand harmonic accumulation dynamic on the live side of the programmesdescribing different possible relationships with the environment, so we canunderstand the formation of living organisms in cascaded coupling throughmagnetic field-substance, and thus comprehending the feedback system (reversereaction positive and / or negative).

Transcriptinformation from magnetic field to substantial support has given rise to thesecond language articulation, which uses words and phrases (programms) producedby the combination of the nitrogenous bases (RNA, DNA), in accordance with thelists of the Fourier spectrum of aminoacids.

FromGenesis 1-12, we can say that the grass and likely all sexless organisms are akind of virus produced by the enviroment (by Earth), in response to informationthat emanates from God through their own magnetic field, before the appearanceof the Sun.

This is likethe information produced by a social system from the word and the action of theManager of that system, so, making a comparison to social systems.

The longevolution of life is very short, but very suggestive, described by Daniel inthe 7.2-4. Other information that describes the emergence of humans, based onevolution, is the one supplied by Paul in 1Chorintiens 15.45-47.

On thebasis of the information transmitted by Proverbs 25.2 Solomon, we can say thatCharles Darwin is one of the Kings of human knowledge.

Thisinformation may be combined with Genesis 6.2 to describe rational interventionof an external intelligence for the purpose of driving evolution in one pre-establisheddirection. This principle of creating opportunities, so that the system will evolvein a predetermined direction, is used nowadays in management.

The actualpresence of paternal mitochondrial DNA in the sperm cells of boys naturallyborn, not in vitro 'born', combined with information from the bible, Paul - Hebrews4.12, Paul - 2 Chorintiens 2.1, and Luke 8.11, genetically certifies Genesisand led me to the development of the theory about the inheritance of paternalmitochondrial DNA (Adam mtDNA theory - - ISBN 978-606-92107-1-0), which completesthe Eve mtDNA theory.

Havingthese elements, we can say that intelligent life is the product of an energyboost, that contains an informational program, which defines the function androle of each specific form of life, integrated in a functional system as awhole and also, we can define viruses as information stored on materialsurroundings by radiations of living organisms, as an environemental feedbackto the behaviour of the organism in the open environment.

Startingfrom the assumption of the Genesis of life by induction of some other form oflife I gave you a plausible definition of life and we can properly convey theefforts of scientists and funds allocated by an appropriate research purposeset by common agreement.

Please takethese descriptions as bio-physical assumptions, until such time when they willbe confirmed or not by biologists in real life.Â

To create a new form of life that does notinteract with the environment, I think you should first set a plan, alsoworking procedure of God:

1 - set up the information program forcarrying out the simplest known form of life, including the membranousprotection and cell multiplication;

2 - create a tyre protection, like amagnetic resonant cavities (Faraday cage); install inside one or more video camerasto record the images;

3 - create one or more transducersbroadband magnetic field (a simple chord or a coil may dither on 30 kHz - 300MHz frequency); these transducers should be some copies of items containing thelife program of the desired form of life, but to be made from inorganicmaterials with the capacity of storage of information;

4 - through a input gate insert the necessarywater and inorganic elements that forms the primary structure of lifeestablished under paragraph 1;

5 - via another input gate insert a veryhigh frequency radiation for sterilization to be sure that there is no life inthe cavity; keep instand by this equipment in order to destroy the shape of life if you will need;

6 - through another input gate insert amagnetic wave in the band 30 kHz - 300 MHz, that was modulated by theinformation programme No 1, like a radio broadcast transmitted words;

7 - cord and / or coil logically shouldswing and perhaps after a period of time should focus the surrounding matter inthe form of the structure set out in paragraph 1;

8-critical point could be obtained bydecreasing the intensity of the external magnetic field and its own resonancein the oscillator, similar to cardiac pulse, i.e. to catch life.

9 - team must be composed of biologists,biochemists, biophysicists and of course a manager.

This means the procedure of God:

- creat rezonant cavity - Genesis 1.6-8;

- creat water and earth as food - Genesis 1.2-10;

- inseminate seeds and words - Genesis 1.11-12

Â

"Tothose who win the victory I will give the right to eat the fruit of the tree oflife that grows in the Garden of God." (Revelation 2.7)

Â

It is possible this plan to succeed or not,but I do not think the deployment costs of are very high and I think that theplan should be tried.

As WinstonChurchill once said about courage, I stood up and expressed my point of viewand now I sit down and listen to the opinions of others involved in thisdialogue.

I hope wecan continue the dialogue on this complex issue of life and its purpose.

Some researchers who have submittedarticles on The Scientist spurred me and I delivered a new definition of lifeand a procedure to create experimental life.

Firstlythank you for your kindness and willingness to enter into dialogue with me, aperson unknown internationally.

Allow me tomake a brief presentation: I am an electronics engineer, specialist in datatransmissions by electromagnetic waves, and manager of Clepsydra.

Since 1990I have addressed issues about the quality of life and I have acquired over timesome knowledge in the field of molecular biology, necessary to understand thephenomenon of life occurrence and life evolution. My son is student inmedicine.

Step1

Based onthe principles of knowledge management, in order to define the full life Iresearched all the information produced by man, of course within the limits ofmy ability and team that I work with, without neglecting it. Comparinginformation from legends and religions, obtained through an unknown technologyof data transmission, against that produced by scientists, gained throughlogical analysis and synthesis of information existing in nature, I deliveredthe Evolutionary Creation Theory, assisted initially by a foreign intelligenceand then by man.

Perhaps the first form of life on the Earthwas sexless mono-cell organisms (see Stanley Miller), then being a worthwhileaddition of an external information to reach RNA and DNA and bi-sexed forms oflife.

The living cell is an open system that obtains dynamic equilibrium statesdue to the radiant and substantial flows from the environment and in theenvironment.

Byretaining information in magnetic field on the media, for the purpose ofsampling theorem and of the principle of the channel, we will be able tounderstand harmonic accumulation dynamic on the live side of the programmesdescribing different possible relationships with the environment, so we canunderstand the formation of living organisms in cascaded coupling throughmagnetic field-substance, and thus comprehending the feedback system (reversereaction positive and / or negative).

Transcriptinformation from magnetic field to substantial support has given rise to thesecond language articulation, which uses words and phrases (programms) producedby the combination of the nitrogenous bases (RNA, DNA), in accordance with thelists of the Fourier spectrum of aminoacids.

FromGenesis 1-12, we can say that the grass and likely all sexless organisms are akind of virus produced by the enviroment (by Earth), in response to informationthat emanates from God through their own magnetic field, before the appearanceof the Sun.

This is likethe information produced by a social system from the word and the action of theManager of that system, so, making a comparison to social systems.

The longevolution of life is very short, but very suggestive, described by Daniel inthe 7.2-4. Other information that describes the emergence of humans, based onevolution, is the one supplied by Paul in 1Chorintiens 15.45-47.

On thebasis of the information transmitted by Proverbs 25.2 Solomon, we can say thatCharles Darwin is one of the Kings of human knowledge.

Thisinformation may be combined with Genesis 6.2 to describe rational interventionof an external intelligence for the purpose of driving evolution in one pre-establisheddirection. This principle of creating opportunities, so that the system will evolvein a predetermined direction, is used nowadays in management.

The actualpresence of paternal mitochondrial DNA in the sperm cells of boys naturallyborn, not in vitro 'born', combined with information from the bible, Paul - Hebrews4.12, Paul - 2 Chorintiens 2.1, and Luke 8.11, genetically certifies Genesisand led me to the development of the theory about the inheritance of paternalmitochondrial DNA (Adam mtDNA theory - - ISBN 978-606-92107-1-0), which completesthe Eve mtDNA theory.

Havingthese elements, we can say that intelligent life is the product of an energyboost, that contains an informational program, which defines the function androle of each specific form of life, integrated in a functional system as awhole and also, we can define viruses as information stored on materialsurroundings by radiations of living organisms, as an environemental feedbackto the behaviour of the organism in the open environment.

Startingfrom the assumption of the Genesis of life by induction of some other form oflife I gave you a plausible definition of life and we can properly convey theefforts of scientists and funds allocated by an appropriate research purposeset by common agreement.

Please takethese descriptions as bio-physical assumptions, until such time when they willbe confirmed or not by biologists in real life.Â

To create a new form of life that does notinteract with the environment, I think you should first set a plan, alsoworking procedure of God:

1 - set up the information program forcarrying out the simplest known form of life, including the membranousprotection and cell multiplication;

2 - create a tyre protection, like amagnetic resonant cavities (Faraday cage); install inside one or more video camerasto record the images;

3 - create one or more transducersbroadband magnetic field (a simple chord or a coil may dither on 30 kHz - 300MHz frequency); these transducers should be some copies of items containing thelife program of the desired form of life, but to be made from inorganicmaterials with the capacity of storage of information;

4 - through a input gate insert the necessarywater and inorganic elements that forms the primary structure of lifeestablished under paragraph 1;

5 - via another input gate insert a veryhigh frequency radiation for sterilization to be sure that there is no life inthe cavity; keep instand by this equipment in order to destroy the shape of life if you will need;

6 - through another input gate insert amagnetic wave in the band 30 kHz - 300 MHz, that was modulated by theinformation programme No 1, like a radio broadcast transmitted words;

7 - cord and / or coil logically shouldswing and perhaps after a period of time should focus the surrounding matter inthe form of the structure set out in paragraph 1;

8-critical point could be obtained bydecreasing the intensity of the external magnetic field and its own resonancein the oscillator, similar to cardiac pulse, i.e. to catch life.

9 - team must be composed of biologists,biochemists, biophysicists and of course a manager.

This means the procedure of God:

- creat rezonant cavity - Genesis 1.6-8;

- creat water and earth as food - Genesis 1.2-10;

- inseminate seeds and words - Genesis 1.11-12

Â

"Tothose who win the victory I will give the right to eat the fruit of the tree oflife that grows in the Garden of God." (Revelation 2.7)

Â

It is possible this plan to succeed or not,but I do not think the deployment costs of are very high and I think that theplan should be tried.

As WinstonChurchill once said about courage, I stood up and expressed my point of viewand now I sit down and listen to the opinions of others involved in thisdialogue.

I hope wecan continue the dialogue on this complex issue of life and its purpose.

If they do this, the kids will be in class 8 hours a day listening to various religious interpretations of life. Keep the magic sky people and talking snakes out of the classroom in public schools. There is NO evidence that any of this wishful thinking is remotely true - deal with it.

If they do this, the kids will be in class 8 hours a day listening to various religious interpretations of life. Keep the magic sky people and talking snakes out of the classroom in public schools. There is NO evidence that any of this wishful thinking is remotely true - deal with it.

If they do this, the kids will be in class 8 hours a day listening to various religious interpretations of life. Keep the magic sky people and talking snakes out of the classroom in public schools. There is NO evidence that any of this wishful thinking is remotely true - deal with it.

Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.